Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T00:14:04.219Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Critical Biological Agents: Disease Reporting as a Tool for Determining Bioterrorism Preparedness

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Heather H. Horton ,
James J. Misrahi ,
Gene W. Matthews  and
Paula L. Kocher
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Before September 11, 2001, a mass-casualty terrorist attack on American soil was generally considered a remote possibility. Similarly, before October 4, 2001—the first confirmed case of anthrax caused by intentional release — widespread bioterrorism seemed implausible. Among the arguments that such a biological artack was unlikely included: the lack of a historical precedent; the technological and organizational challenges to acquiring and weaponizing a biological agent; and the almost universal moral opprobrium that would certainly accompany the use by terrorists of such a weapon. In the wake of September 11th and October 4th, however, many are reconsidering the likelihood of a large-scale bioterrorist attack against civilians.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) defines bioterrorism as the intentional release of viruses, bacteria, or toxins for the purpose of harming or killing civilian. One measurement of the public health system's level of bioterrorism preparedness is the quality and distribution of laws mandating the reporting of diseases caused by certain biological agents.

Type
Article
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 30 , Issue 2 , Summer 2002 , pp. 262 - 266
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Jernigan, J.A.et al., “Bioterrorism-Related Inhalational Anthrax: The First 10 Cases Reported in the United States,” Emerging Infectious Diseases, 7, no. 6 (2001), available at <http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol7no6/jernigan.htm>.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tucker, J., Toxic Terror: Assessing Terrorist Use of Chemical and Biological Weapons (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2000): at 116–37.Google Scholar
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, The Public Health Response to Biological and Chemical Terrorism, Interim Planning Guidance for State Public Health Officials (July 2001), available at <http://www.bt.cdc.gov/Documents/Planning/PlanningGuidance.PDF>..>Google Scholar
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Biological and Chemical Terrorism: Strategic Plan for Preparedness and Response,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Recommendations and Reports, 49, no. 4 (Apr. 21, 2000): 1–14, at 8.Google Scholar
Id. at 12–13.Google Scholar
The study did not specify foodborne botulism (as opposed to infant or non-foodborne botulism), but jurisdictions appear to have assumed, correctly, that the study was most interested in foodborne botulism since it is the type most associated with bioterrorism.Google Scholar
Although the study did not specify E. coli O157:H7, it appears that jurisdictions assumed, correctly, that the study was interested in the harmful E. coli O157:H7 and not in the benign varieties of E. coli.Google Scholar
Some jurisdictions assumed that “toxic syndromes” referred to toxic shock syndrome only, which is often reportable but not associated with bioterrorism. The survey attempted to gather information on the reporting requirements for toxic syndromes generally (e.g., Epsilon) associated with bioterrorism.Google Scholar
The study listed both cholera and Vibrio cholerae. Vibrio cholerae is the agent that causes the disease cholera. While the study intended that cholera and Vibrio cholerae be treated the same for disease-reporting purposes, some jurisdictions assumed that Vibrio cholerae represented vibrio infections generally, which are often not reportable.Google Scholar
Rotz, L.D.et al., “Public Health Assessment of Potential Biological Terrorism Agent,” Emerging Infectious Diseases, 8, no. 2 (2002), available at <http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol8no2/01-0164.htm>.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, supra note 4, at 6.Google Scholar
Tucker, , supra note 2, at 181.Google Scholar
Id. at 115.Google Scholar
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, supra note 4, at 6.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Initiative, at <http://www.bt.cdc.gov/documents/RegMeetingSlides/Overview.pdf> (updated May 8, 2000).+(updated+May+8,+2000).>Google Scholar
See, e.g., Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 19a-215(e) (West 2001) (“Any person who violates any reporting … provision of this section shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars.”).Google Scholar
Model State Emergency Health Powers Act (December 21, 2001), available at <http://www.publichealthlaw.net/MSEHPA/MSEHPA2.pdf>..>Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar